| 2026-02-04 | UPC_CoA_891/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. The CoA upheld the first-instance order, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated the necessity of provisional measures: proceedings on the merits could be awaited; the status quo on the market had existed for years before the patent was granted; and Biolitec failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of urgency regarding stocking or tender-related harm. Biolitec was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| 2025-02-24 | UPC_CoA_540/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | German-language signed version of the Court of Appeal order rejecting Biolitec's appeal in the provisional measures proceedings against Light Guide Optics and SIA LIGHTGUIDE International. Identical in substance to the English version: appeal rejected, Biolitec ordered to bear costs. The provisional injunction was denied because proceedings on the merits could be awaited and necessity was not demonstrated. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | Procedural only | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the operative part of the appeal order of 25 September 2024 (Mammut v Ortovox). In item 3 of the original order, 'Antragsgegnerin' was incorrectly used instead of 'Ortovox'; the corrected wording orders Mammut to reimburse Ortovox further provisional costs of EUR 19,858.40. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_CoA_182/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI granted | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mammut Sports Group and confirmed the provisional measures order issued by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in favour of Ortovox. The Court rejected Mammut's attempts to introduce new submissions and its counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings. The Court confirmed the provisional measures (seizure order and publication), the threatened penalty payment, and the security ordered. The Court additionally ordered Mammut to reimburse Ortovox's further interim costs of EUR 19,858.40 and to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. Key legal principles established include: discretion to consider submissions rightly rejected at first instance; urgency requirements under R.211.4 RoP; irreparable harm not being a necessary condition for provisional measures; and applicability of R.263 RoP to provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 3 September 2024 on AYLO entities' appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of their preliminary objections in infringement proceedings brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV regarding EP 2 479 956. The CoA dismissed AYLO's appeal and upheld the CFI's rulings on: (1) international jurisdiction of the UPC (Art. 7(2) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(1)) – jurisdiction exists if the patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged internet-accessible services can cause damage there; (2) competence of the Mannheim Local Division; (3) rejection of the parallel national proceedings argument under Art. 30(2) Brussels I; and (4) confirmation that the list of preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive – abuse of process and manifest inadmissibility are not recognised as unwritten preliminary objections. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal dismissed AYLO's appeal against the Munich Local Division's rejection of AYLO's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and competence. The Court of Appeal upheld UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast and Art. 71b(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, holding that jurisdiction exists where a European patent has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and alleged damage may occur there (including via internet access). The list of preliminary objections in R. 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; defences based on abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation are not admissible as preliminary objections. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |